Vermischtes vom 31. Oktober 2016

1. Einer Pressemitteilung der National Parents Organization zufolge ist "Shared Parenting", also das auch in Deutschland derzeit heiß diskutierte "Wechselmodell" mit gemeinsamer Betreuung der Kinder durch ihre inzwischen getrennten Eltern, dazu geeignet, häusliche Gewalt zu reduzieren:

International experts have concluded that shared parenting can help reduce domestic violence. At the 2015 International Conference on Shared Parenting, which included about 120 research scientists and other experts from more than 20 countries, participants concluded that "… shared parenting [after parental separation or divorce] is recognized as the most effective means for both reducing high parental conflict and preventing first-time family violence."

This is in stark contrast to the practices of most family courts in the Unites States, which have assumed that shared parenting between high conflict parents after separation or divorce is dangerous and should not be tried. National Parents Organization is pleased that a handful of states -- including Missouri, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Minnesota, and South Dakota -- have implemented laws that encourage shared parenting. More than 20 states have considered similar proposals in the last year.

2. Nachdem es gestern einen vollen Tag lang keine Meldung zu Cassie Jayes Dokumentation "The Red Pill" gab, wird es heute schon wieder irre. So fordert eine neue Petition ein Einreisverbot für Cassie Jaye nach Australien. Mit bislang vollen 18 Unterstützerinnen dürften die Erfolgsaussichten aber selbst in unserer Gesellschaft gering einzuschätzen sein. Währenddessen wurde die Kontroverse um den Film zum Thema in einer Talkrunde der Sendung "Studio 10" im australischen Frühstücksfernsehen. Allmählich sollte das ganze Land über den Film Bescheid wissen.



3. Das Blog "Alles Evolution" diskutiert einen Text zu der Frage, warum sich Studierende in den Gender Studies ausgeschlossen fühlen.



4. In den USA und Kanada werden die ersten Professoren unter Druck gesetzt und entfernt, die sich nicht der herrschenden Ideologie unterwerfen möchten. Über einen Fall berichtet die New York Post:

Liberal studies prof Michael Rectenwald, 57, said he was forced Wednesday to go on paid leave for the rest of the semester.

"They are actually pushing me out the door for having a different perspective," the academic told The Post.

Rectenwald launched an undercover Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof on Sept. 12 to argue against campus trends like "safe spaces," "trigger warnings" and other aspects of academia’s growing PC culture.

He chose to be anonymous, he explained in one of his first tweets, because he was afraid “the PC Gestapo would ruin me" if he put his name behind his conservative ideas on the famously liberal campus.

"I remember once on my Facebook I posted a story about a kid who changed his pronoun to ‘His Majesty’ because I thought it was funny," he told The Post. "Then I got viciously attacked by 400 people. This whole milieu is nauseating. I grew tired of it, so I made the account."

Einen anderen Fall schildert die kanadische National Post:

By now most of the country is familiar with the story of one professor, Jordan Peterson, at the University of Toronto, who has expressed strong and vivid dissent over the university’s attempt to force him to use certain words — ersatz pronouns, a batch of neologisms (ze, zim, zer, and a raft of others, in place of he or she) coined by progressive groups, intended to apply to students who "self-identify" as other than the archaic and obsolete designations of man and woman.

Prof. Peterson will not use these new cant words. He will not be ordered by the university, or pressured by activists, to take their words and put them in his mouth. He goes further and insists that it is an abandonment of academic freedom, and freedom of speech more generally, for the university or others to insist or attempt to mandate such a practice. He has made three videos arguing his case. He points out the ideological forces, the "political agenda" behind "language politics," and correctly argues and identifies that there is far more at stake in this instance than some local gripe about grammatical commonplaces on a single campus.

As a consequence, Peterson received from his university two letters of reprimand and warning, one of which I would like to deal with in some detail, for it is a most miserable document, in content, tone and misdirection. And, coming from a university, it is also simultaneously shameless and utterly shame-worthy. The letters are easily available online for your reference. There is much to object to, but let me concentrate just on the following passage.

As a result of Peterson’s speaking on these matters, "Some students have been the target of specific and violent threats, including threats of assault, injury and death against them individually and as members of the trans community. We trust these that these impacts on students and others were not your intention in making (the controversial remarks). However, in view of these impacts, as well as the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code, we urge you to stop making these remarks."

Is the university seriously claiming, by inference or direct assertion, that because a professor has freely chosen not to speak a set of freshly made-up words that others insist he speak, that others, because of the professor’s intellectual dissent, have really been made targets of "assault, injury, and death threats"?

Hier geht es weiter.

Die Versuche einer relativ kleinen politischen Gruppe, für den Rest der Gesellschaft nur ein bestimmtes Weltbild als verbindlich durchzusetzen, wären weniger beängstigend, wenn der Einfluss dieser Gruppe in Politik, Medien und dem akademischen Bereich nicht so groß wäre.